RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00306
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
                 COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  6 JUN 2008


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded  to  an
honorable discharge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His narrative reason for separation should be  changed  to  a  medical
reason.

In support of his application the applicant provided a copy of DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and  a  copy
of Department of Veterans Affairs Disability Rating Decision, dated 24
July 2006.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
11 August 1972, for a term  of  4  years.   On  29  August  1984,  the
applicant's commander notified him that  he  was  recommending  he  be
discharged from the Air  Force  for  a  pattern  of  misconduct.   The
commander  recommended  he  receive  an  under  other  than  honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

The bases for the commander’s recommendation were that:

            a.  On 28 June 1984, he received an Article 15, for  being
apprehended by the security police for operating a passenger car while
drunk.

             b.  On  or  about  18  November  1982,  he  was  verbally
counseled for cashing a check at the NCO Open Mess, with  insufficient
funds in his checking account.

             c.  On  or  about  15  November  1982,  he  was  verbally
counseled for cashing a check at the NCO Open Mess, with  insufficient
funds in his checking account.

            d.  On or about 20 May 1982, he was verbally counseled for
cashing a check at the NCO Open Mess, with insufficient funds  in  his
checking account.

            e. On 1 February 1982, he  received  an  Article  15,  for
being disrespectful  towards  a  senior  noncommissioned  officer  and
failure to report to his place of duty.

            f. On 6 August 1981, he received a  Letter  of  Counseling
(LOC), for being delinquent to the NCO Open Mess.

            g. On or about 2 April 1981, he was verbally counseled for
cashing a check at the NCO Open Mess, with insufficient funds  in  his
checking account.

            h. He also received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR),  for
failure to make satisfactory progress in the Weight Management Program
(WMP), 4 returned check notices, 6  LOCs  and 2  additional  LORs  for
unsatisfactory progress in  the  WMP  between  2  April  1981  and  26
September 1983.

He acknowledged receipt of the notification of  discharge,  and  after
consulting with counsel offered a conditional  waiver  of  his  rights
associated with an administrative discharge board  hearing  contingent
upon receipt of no less than a general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge.

The discharge case was reviewed by the base legal office and found  to
be legally sufficient  to  support  discharge.   He  also  recommended
applicant’s conditional waiver be accepted and he be discharged with a
general (under honorable conditions) discharge without  probation  and
rehabilitation (P&R).

The discharge authority approved the separation  and  directed  he  be
discharged with  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge
without P&R.  Applicant was separated on 15 October  1984,  under  the
provisions of AFR  39-10,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen  for
(misconduct-pattern  of  conduct  prejudicial  to   good   order   and
discipline)  and  received  a  general  (under  honorable  conditions)
discharge.  He served 11 years, 5 months and 18 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, WV, provided a copy of an Investigation Report,  which  is
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states based on the documentation
on file in the master personnel records; the discharge was  consistent
with the procedural and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge
regulation.  The discharge was within the discretion of the  discharge
authority.  The applicant did not submit any evidence or identify  any
errors or injustices that occurred in the  discharge  processing,  nor
did he provide any facts warranting  a  change  to  his  character  of
service or narrative reason for separation.

The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
23 April 2007, for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  The discharge appears to  be  in
compliance with the governing regulation, and we find no  evidence  to
indicate  his  separation  from  the  Air  Force  was   inappropriate.
Further, we  find  no  evidence  of  error  in  this  case  and  after
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we do not believe he  has
suffered from an injustice.   The  only  other  basis  upon  which  to
upgrade his discharge would be clemency.  However, we have  considered
the  applicant’s  overall  quality  of  service,  the   events   which
precipitated the discharge and  the  evidence  related  to  his  post-
service activities and accomplishments.  On balance, we do not believe
that clemency is warranted.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal  appearance;  and  that  the
application will only be reconsidered upon  the  submission  of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2007-
00306 in Executive Session on 11 September 2007, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
                 Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 07, w/atch.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. FBI Response, dated 2 Aug 07.
      Exhibit D. Memo, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 Apr 07.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Apr 07.




      WAYNE R. GRACIE
      Panel Chair